Facilitating Human-LLM Collaboration through Factuality Scores and Source Attributions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20434v1
• Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 19:23:14 GMT
• Title: Facilitating Human-LLM Collaboration through Factuality Scores and Source Attributions
• Authors: Hyo Jin Do, Rachel Ostrand, Justin D. Weisz, Casey Dugan, Prasanna Sattigeri, Dennis Wei, Keerthiram Murugesan, Werner Geyer,
• Abstract summary: Humans increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs) LLMs are susceptible to generating inaccurate or false information, also known as "hallucinations"
• Score: 35.48507905027844
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: While humans increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs), they are susceptible to generating inaccurate or false information, also known as "hallucinations". Technical advancements have been made in algorithms that detect hallucinated content by assessing the factuality of the model's responses and attributing sections of those responses to specific source documents. However, there is limited research on how to effectively communicate this information to users in ways that will help them appropriately calibrate their trust toward LLMs. To address this issue, we conducted a scenario-based study (N=104) to systematically compare the impact of various design strategies for communicating factuality and source attribution on participants' ratings of trust, preferences, and ease in validating response accuracy. Our findings reveal that participants preferred a design in which phrases within a response were color-coded based on the computed factuality scores. Additionally, participants increased their trust ratings when relevant sections of the source material were highlighted or responses were annotated with reference numbers corresponding to those sources, compared to when they received no annotation in the source material. Our study offers practical design guidelines to facilitate human-LLM collaboration and it promotes a new human role to carefully evaluate and take responsibility for their use of LLM outputs.

Related papers

• Evaluation of Attribution Bias in Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models [47.694137341509304]
  We evaluate the attribution sensitivity and bias with respect to authorship information in large language models. Our results show that adding authorship information to source documents can significantly change the attribution quality of LLMs by 3% to 18%. Our findings indicate that metadata of source documents can influence LLMs' trust, and how they attribute their answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T08:55:49Z)
• Con-ReCall: Detecting Pre-training Data in LLMs via Contrastive Decoding [118.75567341513897]
  Existing methods typically analyze target text in isolation or solely with non-member contexts. We propose Con-ReCall, a novel approach that leverages the asymmetric distributional shifts induced by member and non-member contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-05T09:10:38Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• SPOT: Text Source Prediction from Originality Score Thresholding [6.790905400046194]
  countermeasures aim at detecting misinformation, usually involve domain specific models trained to recognize the relevance of any information. Instead of evaluating the validity of the information, we propose to investigate LLM generated text from the perspective of trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T21:51:01Z)
• TrustScore: Reference-Free Evaluation of LLM Response Trustworthiness [58.721012475577716]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various domains, prompting a surge in their practical applications. This paper introduces TrustScore, a framework based on the concept of Behavioral Consistency, which evaluates whether an LLMs response aligns with its intrinsic knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T21:12:14Z)
• RELIC: Investigating Large Language Model Responses using Self-Consistency [58.63436505595177]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are notorious for blending fact with fiction and generating non-factual content, known as hallucinations. We propose an interactive system that helps users gain insight into the reliability of the generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T14:55:52Z)
• Empirical evaluation of Uncertainty Quantification in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models for Science [0.0]
  This study investigates how uncertainty scores vary when scientific knowledge is incorporated as pretraining and retrieval data. We observe that an existing RALM finetuned with scientific knowledge as the retrieval data tends to be more confident in generating predictions. We also found that RALMs are overconfident in their predictions, making inaccurate predictions more confidently than accurate ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T20:42:11Z)
• FELM: Benchmarking Factuality Evaluation of Large Language Models [40.78878196872095]
  We introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm. We collect responses generated from large language models and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner. Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T17:37:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.